Well, any arguments based upon moral imperatives are, shall we say, extremely problematic. How can people, for instance, suddenly scream that we need to invade Iraq because he gassed his people 20 years ago, and hold any kind of moral high ground considering those same people didn't scream it 20 years ago?
It's a difficult situation all around, and is best expressed, I think, by something I saw on MSNBC the other day. They did a little bit on psyops, and showed a flyer that we've been dropping. It says "We won't abandon you this time."
When you have to drop leaflets like that, it's difficult to make an argument that past alliances don't have anything to do with current events.
No no no. It's the anti-American right that likes to see the boys put in harm's way. It likes to see the boys being shot at. Some elements of it may even like to see the boys killed.
That's why it's not out screaming for their immediate return.
Cheers
Scott
The anti-American Right?
The anti-American LEFT would like to see the enclosed description of Life In Pre-American Occupied Iraq continue on, apparently. I suspect that Hillary Clinton would particularly enjoy lording over such a population, Sammi Jo at her (left) side....
The news just gets better and better. First, Peter Arnett is publicly damned as a traitor. Second, Geraldo Rivera's lying, Clinton-supporting ass is kicked out of the Theater Of Operations by the United States Military. The 101st Airborne will enter Baghdad Geraldo-free.
And all the lefties are grinding their teeth that the war is going well, and that Victory shall be America's.
The Iraqi people haven't welcomed us with open arms? click on the link above to understand why.
Pre-emptive strike on a future aggressor, righting a wrong by which we needed to suck up to Saddam in order to keep him from entering Soviet Orbit, freeing the Iraqi people, whatever... this war is the right thing to do. Its end will be great.
Pre-emptive strike on a future aggressor, righting a wrong by which we needed to suck up to Saddam in order to keep him from entering Soviet Orbit, freeing the Iraqi people, whatever... this war is the right thing to do. Its end will be great.
Aries 1b
And you get to send the kids off to get shot at, which the right seems to enjoy.
Actually, I wasn't referring to the conspiracy theory, but he overall point. I was ignoring the conspiracy theory in general because, as you essentially say, it's a moot point.
Nice deal on the house though. Congratulations. Can I borrow your accountant?
Oh my goodness, I thought this said account , not accountant.
Sorry about that bunge. I would be happy to refer you to him/her however first I would have to hire one.
Hope that first reply didn't seem too snotty, and you are full of goodwill and deserving of plenty as well.
Sorry, got a little carried way. Nothing like a good conspiracy theory to ruffle a few feathers. However I challenge anyone on this forum to prove me wrong. All I know is I spent 4 years in the US Navy patrolling the Caribbean looking for drug boats. I can't tell you how many times that we came across boats that had hundreds of pages of intel on them just to be told by Joint Chiefs of Operations, "Let them go, nothing to see, continue on your way." Ignore the man behind the curtain.
Maybe it was something like the plot of the TV show '24'. They wanted to let them into the country and then nab them *right* before they were about to attack us and then say "Look! With our current budget we were BARELY able to find them in time! Increase our budget!". But then by the time they were in the country they lost them somehow and were like 'Oh shit!' and started to cover the tracks so that they wouldn't get fried for it. This seems more plausible than anyone ACTUALLY intending to have the terrorists blow something up. (Or maybe they didn't think the terrorists would hit something as big as the WTC with the airplanes was) The stakes would be too high for them to actually LET the terrorists kill 3000 Americans. This is all speculation though. I doubt that any of it is true.
As for this 'disprove my theory'... that's bullshit. Anyone can make claims and then say "It's true until someone disproves me". It's not like anyone in this forum has a top level government clearance to try and disprove your theories that only GW Bush and Dick Cheney know about something and no one else.
All these people with this 'proven/unproven' shit. It's not 'proven' until you see it with your own eyes or from someone that you trust. Most of these 'facts' that everyone has comes from the media. These are people you don't know. You're putting your faith in them that what they say is true, but some of you believe it and some don't. You're all just using bits and pieces of facts that you heard here or there. If the facts don't fit what you believe it either 'hasnt been proven' or is 'media propaganda'.
I sure as hell don't trust the media. I don't care if it's the media in france, germany, russia, britain, iraq, india,etc. ALL the medias are biased in one form or another or to one degree or another. Just take what you hear in the media with a dose of salt (I think that's the phrase). Seriously. Right now the media in America is 'Pro-Bush' because they are afraid of a public backlash or being viewed as 'extreme'. It's a "don't rock the boat" attitude. Here is a great link about how media changes their tune to the political climate. I'm sure that there are some 'you scratch my back , and ill scratch yours' deals going on in the media, but I think for the most part they just don't want to rock the boat and get viewed in a bad light.
And you get to send the kids off to get shot at, which the right seems to enjoy.
Cheers
Scott
No one on the American right enjoys sending 'the kids' (by the way, they're Men and Women; at least afford them that respect) off to get shot at. The majority of us on the American Right are heterosexual and inculcate our children with Patriotic Ideals. You should realize that these, by and large, are *our* children that you're talking about.
From time to time it is necessary to unleash the nation's warriors on the nation's enemies so that they can cut the enemy to pieces. Happily, we're no longer waiting around for the enemy to get strong enough to hit us; we're going out and stabbing the f**ker in the heart before he has the chance to do it to us. In short, we're not sending our brave men and women off to get shot at; we're sending them off to do the shooting.
But at least you seem to agree with the idea that that link describing life in Iraq closely matches The Left's Ideal; The Leftist's 'The Way Things Ought To Be'. Wasn't that a peachy picture?
I'll bet Hillary Clinton would love to have all of us under that kind of power.
Aries 1B
PS As I write this, American forces on the ground report seeing the skyline of Baghdad. Press on! And don't forget the ChemBio Equipment!
No one on the American right enjoys sending 'the kids' (by the way, they're Men and Women; at least afford them that respect) off to get shot at. The majority of us on the American Right are heterosexual and inculcate our children with Patriotic Ideals. You should realize that these, by and large, are *our* children that you're talking about.
And you love them so much that you're out protesting in the streets that we're sending them into harm's way for reasons that are dubious at best. Oh wait. You're not. If you're not demanding, immediately, that the "men and women" (I don't know the demographics off hand, but lots and lots of the US infantry are in their teens and early 20s [those are kids, considering that many of them can't even buy alcohol]...just look at the casualty reports) be brought home and out of harm's way, then you must therefore want them to get shot at.
So then, if you think that they're worth losing in this battle, then you must therefore think that Iraqi lives/freedoms are worth more than American lives (since, of course, you don't think it's sufficient to let the Iraqis work out their own problems)? I'm with you! American lives must be lost for Iraqi freedom! We must sacrifice our sons and daughters so the Iraqis can be free! And if they rise up against us, we'll sacrifice MORE sons and daughters so they can be free!
Maybe you're out protesting in the streets that we're becoming the world's policemen? Nope? We should sacrifice MORE of our sons and daughters, of our husbands and wives, all around the world, to ensure that they are free!
Quote:
From time to time it is necessary to unleash the nation's warriors on the nation's enemies so that they can cut the enemy to pieces.
It is necessary because some people like to see our sons and daughters get shot at. No? Then it's necessary because those in power lack the imagination to come up with solutions that don't put our sons and daughters in danger. Or perhaps because they secretly like to watch them get shot at. Or killed.
Quote:
Happily, we're no longer waiting around for the enemy to get strong enough to hit us; we're going out and stabbing the f**ker in the heart before he has the chance to do it to us. In short, we're not sending our brave men and women off to get shot at; we're sending them off to do the shooting.
You'r'e kidding, right? You're suggesting that our brave men and women aren't getting shot at? That that's not part of the bargain? Of COURSE they're getting shot at. And we choose to put them in harm's way. And because we've chosen it, it is either a) because we like to see it or b) because we lack the imagination to come up with a way to avoid it.
And anyone who's not out there demanding that the soldiers come home is de facto supporting them getting shot at and possibly killed.
I'm not even going to TOUCH the "no longer" bit. Like we've always waited around.
Quote:
But at least you seem to agree with the idea that that link describing life in Iraq closely matches The Left's Ideal; The Leftist's 'The Way Things Ought To Be'. Wasn't that a peachy picture?
I have no idea what you're talking about. You're the one supporting an administration that demands that all kinds of documents be kept secret, and that locks up American citizens without charging them or providing them access to a lawyer. You're the one supporting an administration that wants to tap your phones and read your email. You're the one who's supporting an invasion of another country. You're the one who wants us to be the world's policeman. You're the one who wants us to send the kids in to get shot at.
That hardly seems patriotic or American.
Quote:
I'll bet Hillary Clinton would love to have all of us under that kind of power.
I have no idea why you brought this up. Shoudl I start bringing up the Klan and suggesting that they're representative of your political beliefs?
Quote:
PS As I write this, American forces on the ground report seeing the skyline of Baghdad. Press on! And don't forget the ChemBio Equipment! [/B]
You're urging on an urban war with the possible use of chemical weapons?
You're urging on an urban war with the possible use of chemical weapons?
I don't think he's "urging" as much as commenting on the inevitable. They're THERE, aren't they? When they get to Baghdad proper, it kinda automatically becomes "urban warfare". Not much anyone can do or say to make that not so, you know? "Good luck, stay safe, keep your head down..." is more the tone I took from it.
As far as bio-chem suits, that would be as protection against the OTHER guys using the shit that I'm sure you and others here would've bet your left nut they didn't have.
What...is the U.S. going to gas Baghdad and kill civilians left and right? Please tell me that's not what you're implying.
Anyone using chemical/bio weapons ISN'T going to be on the coalition side. It's important you understand that.
I don't think he's "urging" as much as commenting on the inevitable. They're THERE, aren't they? When they get to Baghdad proper, it kinda automatically becomes "urban warfare". Not much anyone can do or say to make that not so, you know? "Good luck, stay safe, keep your head down..." is more the tone I took from it.
As far as bio-chem suits, that would be as protection against the OTHER guys using the shit that I'm sure you and others here would've bet your left nut they didn't have.
What...is the U.S. going to gas Baghdad and kill civilians left and right? Please tell me that's not what you're implying.
Anyone using chemical/bio weapons ISN'T going to be on the coalition side. It's important you understand that.
But GW needs it to seem like Iraq has chem weapons so he'll drop his own and blame it on Iraq ... wait a minute, my tin foil hat needs adjusting, can't have those SETI mind rays get me...
Now you link to the weekly standard?!?! Do you even realize what your sources are?
You are aware that there are many on the 'right' that consider the neo-cons to be insane, aren't you? Sorry. I guess I shouldn't expect that level of sophitication from someone that links to limbaugh's site.
Anyone using chemical/bio weapons ISN'T going to be on the coalition side. It's important you understand that.
I was reading an article just last week about how American forces have stated they intend to use internationally prohibited chemical weapons in the war in iraq. I think it was maybe quoted in a thread here.
I'll look it up later, unless someone else wants to step up. I have to go now.
Comments
Originally posted by midwinter
Past alliances make us complicit in past atrocities, and past atrocities are at least part of the justification for current events.
Cheers
Scott
And the justification is null because of that?
Originally posted by Eugene
And the justification is null because of that?
Well, any arguments based upon moral imperatives are, shall we say, extremely problematic. How can people, for instance, suddenly scream that we need to invade Iraq because he gassed his people 20 years ago, and hold any kind of moral high ground considering those same people didn't scream it 20 years ago?
It's a difficult situation all around, and is best expressed, I think, by something I saw on MSNBC the other day. They did a little bit on psyops, and showed a flyer that we've been dropping. It says "We won't abandon you this time."
When you have to drop leaflets like that, it's difficult to make an argument that past alliances don't have anything to do with current events.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
No no no. It's the anti-American right that likes to see the boys put in harm's way. It likes to see the boys being shot at. Some elements of it may even like to see the boys killed.
That's why it's not out screaming for their immediate return.
Cheers
Scott
The anti-American Right?
The anti-American LEFT would like to see the enclosed description of Life In Pre-American Occupied Iraq continue on, apparently. I suspect that Hillary Clinton would particularly enjoy lording over such a population, Sammi Jo at her (left) side....
http://www.CapMag.com/article.asp?ID=2631
The news just gets better and better. First, Peter Arnett is publicly damned as a traitor. Second, Geraldo Rivera's lying, Clinton-supporting ass is kicked out of the Theater Of Operations by the United States Military. The 101st Airborne will enter Baghdad Geraldo-free.
And all the lefties are grinding their teeth that the war is going well, and that Victory shall be America's.
The Iraqi people haven't welcomed us with open arms? click on the link above to understand why.
Pre-emptive strike on a future aggressor, righting a wrong by which we needed to suck up to Saddam in order to keep him from entering Soviet Orbit, freeing the Iraqi people, whatever... this war is the right thing to do. Its end will be great.
Aries 1b
Originally posted by Aries 1B
Pre-emptive strike on a future aggressor, righting a wrong by which we needed to suck up to Saddam in order to keep him from entering Soviet Orbit, freeing the Iraqi people, whatever... this war is the right thing to do. Its end will be great.
Aries 1b
And you get to send the kids off to get shot at, which the right seems to enjoy.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by bunge
Actually, I wasn't referring to the conspiracy theory, but he overall point. I was ignoring the conspiracy theory in general because, as you essentially say, it's a moot point.
Nice deal on the house though. Congratulations. Can I borrow your accountant?
Oh my goodness, I thought this said account , not accountant.
Sorry about that bunge. I would be happy to refer you to him/her however first I would have to hire one.
Hope that first reply didn't seem too snotty, and you are full of goodwill and deserving of plenty as well.
Nick
Originally posted by Relic
Sorry, got a little carried way. Nothing like a good conspiracy theory to ruffle a few feathers. However I challenge anyone on this forum to prove me wrong. All I know is I spent 4 years in the US Navy patrolling the Caribbean looking for drug boats. I can't tell you how many times that we came across boats that had hundreds of pages of intel on them just to be told by Joint Chiefs of Operations, "Let them go, nothing to see, continue on your way." Ignore the man behind the curtain.
Maybe it was something like the plot of the TV show '24'. They wanted to let them into the country and then nab them *right* before they were about to attack us and then say "Look! With our current budget we were BARELY able to find them in time! Increase our budget!". But then by the time they were in the country they lost them somehow and were like 'Oh shit!' and started to cover the tracks so that they wouldn't get fried for it. This seems more plausible than anyone ACTUALLY intending to have the terrorists blow something up. (Or maybe they didn't think the terrorists would hit something as big as the WTC with the airplanes was) The stakes would be too high for them to actually LET the terrorists kill 3000 Americans. This is all speculation though. I doubt that any of it is true.
As for this 'disprove my theory'... that's bullshit. Anyone can make claims and then say "It's true until someone disproves me". It's not like anyone in this forum has a top level government clearance to try and disprove your theories that only GW Bush and Dick Cheney know about something and no one else.
I sure as hell don't trust the media. I don't care if it's the media in france, germany, russia, britain, iraq, india,etc. ALL the medias are biased in one form or another or to one degree or another. Just take what you hear in the media with a dose of salt (I think that's the phrase). Seriously. Right now the media in America is 'Pro-Bush' because they are afraid of a public backlash or being viewed as 'extreme'. It's a "don't rock the boat" attitude. Here is a great link about how media changes their tune to the political climate. I'm sure that there are some 'you scratch my back , and ill scratch yours' deals going on in the media, but I think for the most part they just don't want to rock the boat and get viewed in a bad light.
Originally posted by I-bent-my-wookie
Its pretty easy to discount anyone that agrees with you as a Saddam Lover, eh?
saves coming up with an argument.
salute and obey without question, right?
No, I've made my case against SJO in the past. Go search for the thread if you care.
You know things aren't as black and white as you make them out to be.
Originally posted by midwinter
And you get to send the kids off to get shot at, which the right seems to enjoy.
Cheers
Scott
No one on the American right enjoys sending 'the kids' (by the way, they're Men and Women; at least afford them that respect) off to get shot at. The majority of us on the American Right are heterosexual and inculcate our children with Patriotic Ideals. You should realize that these, by and large, are *our* children that you're talking about.
From time to time it is necessary to unleash the nation's warriors on the nation's enemies so that they can cut the enemy to pieces. Happily, we're no longer waiting around for the enemy to get strong enough to hit us; we're going out and stabbing the f**ker in the heart before he has the chance to do it to us. In short, we're not sending our brave men and women off to get shot at; we're sending them off to do the shooting.
But at least you seem to agree with the idea that that link describing life in Iraq closely matches The Left's Ideal; The Leftist's 'The Way Things Ought To Be'. Wasn't that a peachy picture?
I'll bet Hillary Clinton would love to have all of us under that kind of power.
Aries 1B
PS As I write this, American forces on the ground report seeing the skyline of Baghdad. Press on! And don't forget the ChemBio Equipment!
No one on the American right enjoys sending 'the kids' (by the way, they're Men and Women; at least afford them that respect) off to get shot at. The majority of us on the American Right are heterosexual and inculcate our children with Patriotic Ideals. You should realize that these, by and large, are *our* children that you're talking about.
And you love them so much that you're out protesting in the streets that we're sending them into harm's way for reasons that are dubious at best. Oh wait. You're not. If you're not demanding, immediately, that the "men and women" (I don't know the demographics off hand, but lots and lots of the US infantry are in their teens and early 20s [those are kids, considering that many of them can't even buy alcohol]...just look at the casualty reports) be brought home and out of harm's way, then you must therefore want them to get shot at.
So then, if you think that they're worth losing in this battle, then you must therefore think that Iraqi lives/freedoms are worth more than American lives (since, of course, you don't think it's sufficient to let the Iraqis work out their own problems)? I'm with you! American lives must be lost for Iraqi freedom! We must sacrifice our sons and daughters so the Iraqis can be free! And if they rise up against us, we'll sacrifice MORE sons and daughters so they can be free!
Maybe you're out protesting in the streets that we're becoming the world's policemen? Nope? We should sacrifice MORE of our sons and daughters, of our husbands and wives, all around the world, to ensure that they are free!
From time to time it is necessary to unleash the nation's warriors on the nation's enemies so that they can cut the enemy to pieces.
It is necessary because some people like to see our sons and daughters get shot at. No? Then it's necessary because those in power lack the imagination to come up with solutions that don't put our sons and daughters in danger. Or perhaps because they secretly like to watch them get shot at. Or killed.
Happily, we're no longer waiting around for the enemy to get strong enough to hit us; we're going out and stabbing the f**ker in the heart before he has the chance to do it to us. In short, we're not sending our brave men and women off to get shot at; we're sending them off to do the shooting.
You'r'e kidding, right? You're suggesting that our brave men and women aren't getting shot at? That that's not part of the bargain? Of COURSE they're getting shot at. And we choose to put them in harm's way. And because we've chosen it, it is either a) because we like to see it or b) because we lack the imagination to come up with a way to avoid it.
And anyone who's not out there demanding that the soldiers come home is de facto supporting them getting shot at and possibly killed.
I'm not even going to TOUCH the "no longer" bit. Like we've always waited around.
But at least you seem to agree with the idea that that link describing life in Iraq closely matches The Left's Ideal; The Leftist's 'The Way Things Ought To Be'. Wasn't that a peachy picture?
I have no idea what you're talking about. You're the one supporting an administration that demands that all kinds of documents be kept secret, and that locks up American citizens without charging them or providing them access to a lawyer. You're the one supporting an administration that wants to tap your phones and read your email. You're the one who's supporting an invasion of another country. You're the one who wants us to be the world's policeman. You're the one who wants us to send the kids in to get shot at.
That hardly seems patriotic or American.
I'll bet Hillary Clinton would love to have all of us under that kind of power.
I have no idea why you brought this up. Shoudl I start bringing up the Klan and suggesting that they're representative of your political beliefs?
PS As I write this, American forces on the ground report seeing the skyline of Baghdad. Press on! And don't forget the ChemBio Equipment! [/B]
You're urging on an urban war with the possible use of chemical weapons?
Originally posted by tonton
Aries1B sees this as a game and really gets off on it all. It's pretty sick.
You know what "stabbing our enemy in the heart before he has the chance to do it to us" is usually referred to as?
Paranoid. Pre-emptive. Intolerant. Self-righteous. Violence.
And unAmerican.
Originally posted by midwinter
And unAmerican.
It might be unAmerican, but at least it's 'Merican.
Originally posted by tonton
Aries1B sees this as a game and really gets off on it all. It's pretty sick.
You know what "stabbing our enemy in the heart before he has the chance to do it to us" is usually referred to as?
Paranoid. Pre-emptive. Intolerant. Self-righteous. Violence.
War: ~700 civilians
"Containment": ~4400 civilians
War is unjust.
We should listen to the UN.
Originally posted by midwinter
You're urging on an urban war with the possible use of chemical weapons?
I don't think he's "urging" as much as commenting on the inevitable. They're THERE, aren't they? When they get to Baghdad proper, it kinda automatically becomes "urban warfare". Not much anyone can do or say to make that not so, you know? "Good luck, stay safe, keep your head down..." is more the tone I took from it.
As far as bio-chem suits, that would be as protection against the OTHER guys using the shit that I'm sure you and others here would've bet your left nut they didn't have.
What...is the U.S. going to gas Baghdad and kill civilians left and right? Please tell me that's not what you're implying.
Anyone using chemical/bio weapons ISN'T going to be on the coalition side. It's important you understand that.
Originally posted by tonton
Aries1B sees this as a game and really gets off on it all. It's pretty sick.
You know what "stabbing our enemy in the heart before he has the chance to do it to us" is usually referred to as?
Paranoid. Pre-emptive. Intolerant. Self-righteous. Violence.
So the cop that shoots the criminal that pulls a gun on him is evil? He's "shooting the criminal before he has the chance to shoot him".
Originally posted by pscates
I don't think he's "urging" as much as commenting on the inevitable. They're THERE, aren't they? When they get to Baghdad proper, it kinda automatically becomes "urban warfare". Not much anyone can do or say to make that not so, you know? "Good luck, stay safe, keep your head down..." is more the tone I took from it.
As far as bio-chem suits, that would be as protection against the OTHER guys using the shit that I'm sure you and others here would've bet your left nut they didn't have.
What...is the U.S. going to gas Baghdad and kill civilians left and right? Please tell me that's not what you're implying.
Anyone using chemical/bio weapons ISN'T going to be on the coalition side. It's important you understand that.
But GW needs it to seem like Iraq has chem weapons so he'll drop his own and blame it on Iraq ... wait a minute, my tin foil hat needs adjusting, can't have those SETI mind rays get me...
Originally posted by DanMacMan
An interesting read for you lefties.
Now you link to the weekly standard?!?! Do you even realize what your sources are?
You are aware that there are many on the 'right' that consider the neo-cons to be insane, aren't you? Sorry. I guess I shouldn't expect that level of sophitication from someone that links to limbaugh's site.
Originally posted by pscates
Anyone using chemical/bio weapons ISN'T going to be on the coalition side. It's important you understand that.
I was reading an article just last week about how American forces have stated they intend to use internationally prohibited chemical weapons in the war in iraq. I think it was maybe quoted in a thread here.
I'll look it up later, unless someone else wants to step up. I have to go now.
Originally posted by groverat
War: ~700 civilians
"Containment": ~4400 civilians
What was causing the deaths of those ~4400 civilians and how has dropping bombs on Iraq magically prevented them from continuing to happen?